Yeah, I'm finding out that billt is all about the double standards and only answering what he want to answer instead of the questions asked.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
compact 1911, yay or nay?
- Thread Starter cbzdel
- Start date
Yeah, I'm finding out that billt is all about the double standards and only answering what he want to answer instead of the questions asked.
- Messages
- 7,053
- Reactions
- 8,761
Seems like you should read some of those as they are just like this thread rather than a full on dislike of the subcompacts.
- Messages
- 347
- Reactions
- 88
Why would I want to own a pistol that has had a reputation plagued with operating and performance issues since it's inception, when I already have 2 Mini Glocks, (26 and 30), that cost half as much and perform flawlessly? Paying twice the price for something that doesn't work half as well, if that, isn't an attractive proposition, at least not to me.
It's really too bad. The guns look and handle well, they just aren't something I would pay well into 4 digits for to stake my life on, when there are much more logical, better performing choices out there that cost far less. That to me is common sense. You can call it whatever you like. Bill T.
Lol. Why doesn't this surprise me.....
- Messages
- 347
- Reactions
- 88
Where did I ever state that I dislike sub compacts? I own several, just not in the 1911 configuration. The sub compact pistol is a bit more of an engineering challenge to achieve good operational performance. The 1911 platform doesn't lend itself well to it. That has been proven, as most all of the manufacturers have had many of the exact same operational issues and problems with the pistol.
Again, common sense dictates if I am going to choose a self defense carry pistol to stake my life on in a last line of defense scenario, it has to run 100% of the time with whatever ammunition I happen to have in it. The chopped 1911's have proven, at least to me, they are not anywhere near 100% dependable in that situation. If they were I would most likely own more than one, as I like the platform. But the fact is they don't. So based on that I'll choose to take a pass and spend my money elsewhere on a sub compact that doesn't carry around such a reputation for having operational issues.
If I am going to spend $1,200.00 on a self defense handgun, regardless of type, the first place it's going after a trip to the range is on my person, not back to the factory. Again, I'm not saying that every chopped 1911 is a nightmare in that regard. But it would appear enough of them are, that I wouldn't risk 4 digits of my hard earned money, along with my life on one, when there are better, less expensive choices out there that don't come with that risk tied to them. Again I'm simply applying common sense. If that in itself offends someone, I apologise. Bill T.
- Messages
- 347
- Reactions
- 88
What exactly is it you want to hear? The facts are out there on both Glocks and chopped 1911's. Enough to keep an interested buyer busy for days. It is up to the individual to decide what information they'll absorb, and what to dismiss.
To say, or even suggest, the chopped 1911 sub compacts run as well as Glocks, (sub compact or otherwise), would be foolish. That is simply not the case. It doesn't matter if you like Glocks, 1911's, both, or neither. The chopped 1911's sell well despite these issues. Some simply like the gun so much they are willing to overlook them, and take a chance with the gun. That is their choice, and they are free to do so. Some will regret it, while others won't. It's a gamble I chose not to take.
As far as lights on Glocks, etc. It doesn't concern me because I don't use them, and quite frankly your mention of it is the first I've ever heard of it. No one has said Glocks have never had an issue. It's fair to say they have had far fewer operating issues than chopped 1911's, and are more dependable as a result.
I do agree with you the bushingless 9 MM chopped 1911's are far better performers than their .45 ACP counterparts. At least the ones I've seen. But again as tempted as I could be to consider one, I just can't get over the cost vs. dependable operation, hurdle the sub compact Glock places in front of it. The fact of the matter is as long as there are better, more dependable choices out there like the sub compact Glock, along with others, I personally can't justify a chopped 1911 at the present time. 9 MM or otherwise. I should add that I would easily consider a full size, steel frame 9 MM 1911 because the cost to shoot it with factory ammo is far less. In the full size models, the 9 MM functions well with good magazines like those avaliable from Wilson Combat. Bill T.
- Messages
- 57
- Reactions
- 7
CURSE YOU PHOTOSHOP!!:angry:
- Messages
- 347
- Reactions
- 88
That is some damn good work Photoshopping! Bill T.
- Messages
- 781
- Reactions
- 321
Isn't that the Generation 5 Glock? They couldn't get the Gen 4 to work so they had to resort to a proven design. Haha
This statement is for entertainment purposes only and void of any real facts.
Mike
This statement is for entertainment purposes only and void of any real facts.
Mike
Someone made a comment about 34 pages ago about early short 1911's were just chopped full size models. Am wondering what models they were.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Colt brought out the first sub-4" 1911, the Officer model, and it was totally engineered for its size. The 4 1/4" (true) Commander, which looks like it has the same full sized frame, is again engineered to the design. The frame rails are set back .100" further than the Government framed counterpart.
About Bruce Grays article, the first 1911's off the press had a small radius firing pin stop, instead of the well sloped/ramped style we see today in most every 1911.
If ya wanna slow down the slide, keep it locked up for smidge longer, and reduce felt recoil, install one of the original design styles, as shown here;
The military was the one that had it changed, as the slide was too hard to rack with the hammer forward.
Upon firing, the first resistance the slide will encounter is that radius against the hammer. Since the radius is small, its harder for the slide to push the hammer back vs. the ramped/sloped style, thus the slide stays locked up a tad longer, which allows the chamber pressure to subside, and also slows the overall slide momentum, as most of the energy is spent pushing/cocking the hammer.
Most of all felt recoil is the slide impacting the frame upon its fullest rearward travel. Slow the slide down, you get less felt recoil.
Watch this video, and you'll see the gun rise somewhat upon firing, as the slide is going back, the hand is fighting to keep it aligned. But when the slide reaches full rearward motion, that's when the gun goes skyward. Slow down the impact of the slide on the frame, and you keep the gun aligned better for faster follow up shots. Most if not all your competition guys run 'em, and for good reason.
Colt 1911 firing at 600 frames per second slow motion - YouTube
Couple the small radius firing pin stop with the original designated weight recoil spring, which is 14lbs, not 16 for a full sized 1911, and you'll get one sweet cycling gun. Now install the same firing pin stop on a smaller model, you'll cure just about everything that Bruce mentions...wonder why he didn't think of it? hmmmm maybe ol' JMB really did know something about what he was doin'.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Colt brought out the first sub-4" 1911, the Officer model, and it was totally engineered for its size. The 4 1/4" (true) Commander, which looks like it has the same full sized frame, is again engineered to the design. The frame rails are set back .100" further than the Government framed counterpart.
About Bruce Grays article, the first 1911's off the press had a small radius firing pin stop, instead of the well sloped/ramped style we see today in most every 1911.
If ya wanna slow down the slide, keep it locked up for smidge longer, and reduce felt recoil, install one of the original design styles, as shown here;
The military was the one that had it changed, as the slide was too hard to rack with the hammer forward.
Upon firing, the first resistance the slide will encounter is that radius against the hammer. Since the radius is small, its harder for the slide to push the hammer back vs. the ramped/sloped style, thus the slide stays locked up a tad longer, which allows the chamber pressure to subside, and also slows the overall slide momentum, as most of the energy is spent pushing/cocking the hammer.
Most of all felt recoil is the slide impacting the frame upon its fullest rearward travel. Slow the slide down, you get less felt recoil.
Watch this video, and you'll see the gun rise somewhat upon firing, as the slide is going back, the hand is fighting to keep it aligned. But when the slide reaches full rearward motion, that's when the gun goes skyward. Slow down the impact of the slide on the frame, and you keep the gun aligned better for faster follow up shots. Most if not all your competition guys run 'em, and for good reason.
Colt 1911 firing at 600 frames per second slow motion - YouTube
Couple the small radius firing pin stop with the original designated weight recoil spring, which is 14lbs, not 16 for a full sized 1911, and you'll get one sweet cycling gun. Now install the same firing pin stop on a smaller model, you'll cure just about everything that Bruce mentions...wonder why he didn't think of it? hmmmm maybe ol' JMB really did know something about what he was doin'.
- Messages
- 4,996
- Reactions
- 2,279
Because, like I said before, it is amazing what even an expert can overlook when they are trying to justify their own outdated bias.
- Messages
- 2,079
- Reactions
- 318
Great scoop Wichaka makes perfect sense to me,but have to wonder why Colt and others haven't changed out the sloped style in their officer size guns. I plan on making this change in one of mine BTW. Thank'sSomeone made a comment about 34 pages ago about early short 1911's were just chopped full size models. Am wondering what models they were.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Colt brought out the first sub-4" 1911, the Officer model, and it was totally engineered for its size. The 4 1/4" (true) Commander, which looks like it has the same full sized frame, is again engineered to the design. The frame rails are set back .100" further than the Government framed counterpart.
About Bruce Grays article, the first 1911's off the press had a small radius firing pin stop, instead of the well sloped/ramped style we see today in most every 1911.
If ya wanna slow down the slide, keep it locked up for smidge longer, and reduce felt recoil, install one of the original design styles, as shown here;
The military was the one that had it changed, as the slide was too hard to rack with the hammer forward.
Upon firing, the first resistance the slide will encounter is that radius against the hammer. Since the radius is small, its harder for the slide to push the hammer back vs. the ramped/sloped style, thus the slide stays locked up a tad longer, which allows the chamber pressure to subside, and also slows the overall slide momentum, as most of the energy is spent pushing/cocking the hammer.
Most of all felt recoil is the slide impacting the frame upon its fullest rearward travel. Slow the slide down, you get less felt recoil.
Watch this video, and you'll see the gun rise somewhat upon firing, as the slide is going back, the hand is fighting to keep it aligned. But when the slide reaches full rearward motion, that's when the gun goes skyward. Slow down the impact of the slide on the frame, and you keep the gun aligned better for faster follow up shots. Most if not all your competition guys run 'em, and for good reason.
Colt 1911 firing at 600 frames per second slow motion - YouTube
Couple the small radius firing pin stop with the original designated weight recoil spring, which is 14lbs, not 16 for a full sized 1911, and you'll get one sweet cycling gun. Now install the same firing pin stop on a smaller model, you'll cure just about everything that Bruce mentions...wonder why he didn't think of it? hmmmm maybe ol' JMB really did know something about what he was doin'.
- Messages
- 122
- Reactions
- 14
My carry of choice is the Ruger P345. carbon-fiber polymer frame lightens up the total weight, still well-balanced and eats whatever I feed it.
Last Edited:
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
Wanted: Glock 19 / 23 Gen 3 frame only or aftermarket equivalent - Lake Oswego- Started by af306
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
